tv [untitled] August 28, 2014 11:00am-11:31am PDT
solid store front so i ask the board to use discretion but if you're concerned i'm not speaking correctly then please continue it until i get the deputy director who is the person who denied the permit >> go ahead after you. >> you said there's a representative. >> pardon me. >> representative of a building. >> yes. >> i have a question. >> before you do that i have a simple question. those buildings are they separate parcels >> they're separate parcels but opposed by itself shore at the scene company. >> yes. separate and you have a question. >> yeah, the person that's itself same owner of tenth and market are they willing to give up that address perpetuity.
>> you can't take it back. >> that's the problem this building is in the middle of the block what happens if something gets built. >> they're basically stating they'll never ask fore 1 tenth street ever again for this address. i'm sure they're willing to and go to. >> my name is jeanie i'm the development manager and vice president of shore at the scene company i've been there 16 years. i was the key part in developing bringing the market square project i ran the one tenth building on stevenson and converted that to the high-rise it is today we've finished converting the 875 stevenson
alley to a park a public open space so it additional is no longer a street. my question there were references to potential problems with the post office etc. wouldn't that be your responsibility to your tenant to make sure that malicious is getting properly delivered that the emergency personnel know all that. in terms of are you insuring our tenants everything associated with that number will work for them >> yes. we are and we - >> i think the responsibility of the building owner. >> we've upgraded the emergency system and gotten fire sign off on that building they recognize it as one-tenth. >> has there been post office
deliveries. >> there's folks getting their mail we didn't put in for that mail address. i assume they did that mail is being delivered i was trying to get a piece of the viewing >> you haven't had complaint they're not getting their mail and no complaint. the 1355 market street building that's facing the strength street the slab of that building is much higher than the sidewalk. and so to put a store front door thereof of the windows is probably 5 to 7 feet high because of the sleep of the tenth street slopes down as it
hits the building >> you have an historic designation. >> we'll have a historic designation i was down at planning going through some other issues regarding some of the tenant improvements. there is one tenant at the corner of 1355 market that stretches through to what used to be 875 stooefrn son and back they're in construction right now. i was there on their on behalf of today when some restacks on the exterior of the building we're trying to work out with planning so it's a historic designation we can't do anything to the facade and their careful and we've restored it >> what kind of i have historic designation? >> i don't know the answer to that historic designation. >> okay. this project involves
how many parcels. >> i believe it involves 4 parcels. >> and was there ever thought to combine those? >> i don't know we didn't want to take that through zoning there are easement requirements with the city as well as the pg&e down the stevenson alley so therefore we can't reparcel that i believe. >> any other questions. >> this isn't going away. >> we have an agreement with a pedestrian open agreement with the city for that alley as well they have easement rights as well. >> okay. >> so i think we can't reparcel lists it. >> thank you.
thank you. and mr. duffy. >> does this feel like the miracle on 34th street with the post office? >> just to add a couple of things i actually washgd the block and decided to walk down to see the numbers i was intrigued i didn't see 80 one but the first address on the street past the stevenson alley is alley street i took alleys it is 6573 are 83 and 93 directly across the road is the new building on tenth and market the new high-rise and directly across the street from the alley is number 8, tenth street done
from the corner they're not getting number 2 that's number 2 if they wanted - they came in and got number 8 down from the corner if mr. screening e screening i didn't times to get involved we wouldn't be here but if you need to speak to mr. screening i didn't maybe i should have had a discussion with the gentleman but certainly from the information sheet the other thing that i was thinking if this all start in 2013 there was a lot of work happening in 2013 to my left another that property that decision maybe should have happened in 2011 or envelope this is a big project. i'm not saying this happened but they thought they were going to get the number and obviously
didn't. the e-mails that i have here april 2014 is the first visit from the architect to the building department to formerly speak to other folks and other e-mails so the 2013 i imagine the discussion on numbers really needs to start before projects start 23 you're going to market our building maybe it definitely should have been talked about before 2013 in my opinion >> okay. >> i have a question so when you took pictures stowaway have a picture of the block i'm looking the plot map and maybe you can put it on the overhead. >> just on my form. >> do you have a like - >> i didn't do that i walked along and took the pictures of the addresses on the doorways but they're on the map.
>> thank you. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> well, you know the argument as the presented i don't find compelling at all. i'm convinced that the mid block should be one >> one. >> i agree. >> one one hundred and 16 feet i think of the corner. >> if they agree elevated all the elements into on parcel the opinions would not change. >> yeah. and i'm not sure there's a love harm.
>> yes. i'm not in disagreement with this statement but whether they deserve something it's quite different than the other patterns of this city. i don't see. move to deny the appeal on the basis let see - the tuesday. the department in error it was a denial. thank you. >> that the denial was not in error. >> yes. exactly. >> vice president well, actually we have a standard. >> yes. i wonder if you want to refer to the policy. >> yes. i just remembered that thank you.
so the administrative bulletin that refers to the ointment of street numbers and according to that - >> okay. >> the denial was reasonable. >> okay. vice president i wonder if you want to refer to the policy that was issued in 2011 that talks about the goibz policy of and i signing the numbers to the area >> i'll incorporate that addition as well. thank you. >> the denial was reasonable
pursuant to the dbi bulletin 035. >> yes. and what's the second document we're referring to. >> in addition i don't have it in front of me can you repeat what i stayed. >> it's g dash over and over 3 an foopgs sheet dated april 20th, 2014, in accordance. >> the vice president says to uphold the continual that was reasonable pursuant to dbis administrative bulletin ab 035 and the beginning informational sheet g dash 03. >> correct. >> on that motion to uphold. commissioner fung. commissioner president lazarus. no. commissioner honda >> thank you. the vote is 3 to one this denial
is upheld on that basis. thank you >> thank you so the next item is the golden gate heights area the property address is on carr trespasser street to evaluation permit the public hearing was held on june 4th and continued for further consideration to allow time for the public works to conclude it's analysis of the city facility ordinance. >> commissioners i'm having to rouse myself from at&t i'll ask commissioner hurtado to chair the rest of the meeting.
>> so in this case, i think we should start with the department since the matter was continued for your review and have hear from the other parties. yes >> good evening carlo public works. bureau of street mapping. i think that in our review of the ordinance in our drafting and the new order when we have skinl submitted for former comments it's not been net formally adapted only because the request of the sponsoring supervisor of the legislation actually requested we hold open our hearing a little bit longer to allow for additional public comment until after the labor holiday. so we have reviewed that order
and that draft. i think based on that we still feel that this appeal should be upheld although the permit was noticeably issued properly. none of the new processes prosecute 0s that require public outreach have taken place in this case it might still meet the technical merits of the location of the site a large part of the ordinance was designed to insure there's fair community outreach to all if he should parties we suggest the appeal should be upheld and the ordinance clearly states that any permit not final on the effective date of the ordinance should be denied. we therefore building this appeal this should be upheld and
the permit not granted >> thank you. we can hear from the appellant or the appellants agent. >> good evening and i don't have a whole lot to add i think it's wonderful we've come together and old some much more what i think would be effective processes for the selection of the ideal location for those boxes. i completely agree with the department thank you. marie representative for the appellant and now the permit holder mr. johnson. >> good evening, commissioners. i just have a few points i'll make briefly. the first thing i want want to
point out the new ordinance required the department it issue a new regulations within 60 days of the effective date of the ordinance the ordinance became effective on june 27th that 60s dazed expired yesterday without the department issuing the regulations. i'll be the first person to concede it the department has put considerable effort into drafting the regulations with multiple draft and down their utmost to get comments and met with at&t and others. but it's frustrating that the ordinance has been in effective only skwi days and the department is in violation of that. the position that the department has taken is that at&t's permit even though their not evidence
whatsoever that the right-of-way should be denied on purely grounds. and i'd like to make a few comments for the record to remind the board how long that permit has been an issue at&t has been seeking this permit for more than 3 and a half years we applied in march of 2011 on march 13 of 2014 at&t was grant a permit by the department. an appeal filed on april 2nd the hearing for may 14. over at&t's observation that hearing was rescheduled to june 4th. that was while the old ordinance was in effective rather than decide the appeal the board tndz continued it to july 2nd. heard additional testimony and continued it for a third time
two months out until august 22nd this evening so to summarize it's been 5 most since onsite was granted a permit and their shill no decision one way or another. it's a matter of law as to why the appeal should be denied is simply i've stated many times the public utilities act on it and not grant it and take it away. we simply ask the board take into account when they make their decision this evening. thank you. >> thank you any public comment on that item? okay. seeing none commissioners
the matter is submitted. >> i'm prepared to accept the departments recommendation and to uphold the excuse me. accept the appeal and reject the permit. >> i don't have anything to add move to deny the appeal on the basis that - >> no move to grant the appeal. >> grant the appeal i'm sorry. is that based on the new
legislation? >> that was your motion commissioner fung or - >> mine. so we have a motion if the vice president to grant this appeal, deny the permit with the finding that this permit didn't comply with the few smf ordinance. on that motion to deny with that finding commissioner fung. the president is recused. commissioner honda. thank you. the vote is 3 to zero given we have a vacancy this permit is
denied thank you. >> thank you. next item is appeal john inadmissible and others vs. the public works street use and mapping. the property on burr restraining order street protesting the issuance to intersection excavation permit this is application permit on hearing for today. and we will start in a minute and you'll have 7 minutes. okay. go ahead thank you >> sorry i'm shawn michelle i've native-born and started my business in the city and my business is on the corner where they want to put the box.
i want you to know that at&t came in here with an underground of fiberoptics knowing they would have to put a surface box somewhere in our contingent they never bofrthd to contact the businesses and communities and ask for you for our impact now they godfather go and get a permit to put it on the busiest corner of san broourn and they're saying that it won't impede the traffic on the corner but i have two businesses a dell indication and a chair i permit basically in front of where they want to put their box.
i don't think they've taking into consideration or looked at what was permitted there. and when the board like we protested this to the board of supervisors i wasn't able to go make that here that day but i don't think the board realized i h have a permit for chairs and tables and have a window with chairs and tables on the inside this box is i don't know if you've seen the pictures if you'd like to see them i put up a make up box people that walk but they don't have enough room they could struggle that's not the place to put that. and when they did it the first
time they put that cross the street and now at the first location they have a walk through for the community for you will have us to talk and see where we can put the box the second time not arranging for a community walk through they bypassed it to the department of building inspection to pull the permit. i'm here with the steering committee and turning our street into a desirable street but they're doing the wrong thing and at&t didn't consider us
notary republic not one bit they thought where to put those things. i just think you shouldn't allow them to i know they have to put their communications in places we have a committee they never bothered to talk to us they're the one percent the billions of company they can come in and do whatever it's not right. i think we could have at the start of this thing if they would have talked to us in the community we could have no idea them a sdriebl place they want to put it in front of my place because it will cost them too much money to put it around the street there's bushes around the
corner but they never looked at this. they never talked to us about it. all i can say is the community in the last 25 or thirty years i know you know the street has really come a long way and by putting this box where they want to put it is going to be the ugliest not good. i hope i can get our support because there's so many other places we would have worked with them i offered a place and they said there's not enough room i offered it on my property. and they said there wasn't enough room but i offered them
places to put it never came back and said intended to the desirable there's a tunnel underneath the street if they were putting in those box why couldn't they put it somewhere out-of-sight our street is coming a long way their argument it won't impede on our to the traffic it will impede you've got wheelchairs and people are strollers there's not enough room there. i hope you come in favor of us we're trying i've been here all my life and i would hyatt hate to see there's little things but
big things for us their huge. and as you can see i put that make up here the next day it was tattooed with stickers and graffiti they could find a more desirable place to put their box >> mr. mitchel what's the width felt sidewalk saw i don't have it in front of me. >> i'm sure the information is here. >> the steering committee donated pots and flowers so this takes up room we're trying to make our street for the community we're not that's all we want space for our people to walk by. >> thank you. thank you >> okay mr. johnson.
>> thank you. i'd like to begin by correcting a couple of statements that the appellant made. so the appellant suggested for instance, that at&t did no community outreach then he wanted to conceive is not the case at&t, in fact, connected conducted two walk-through's and wanted people to meet with at&t. we originally property the box on the other side the community opposed that. so then we remailed and noticed we sent and field person out and meet e met with the appellant by attempting a purchase